Hillsborough Law

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. It would be wrong not to pay particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his advocacy concerning the Hillsborough families and for public accountability more widely.

The Government’s Public Office (Accountability) Bill, widely referred to as the Hillsborough law, represents a significant step towards placing a legal duty of candour on public authorities and officials, and strengthens the inquest representation for bereaved families and victims.

Noble Lords who have followed the Hillsborough campaign know that this is not simply an exercise in drafting; it is an attempt to learn the hard lessons of decades of anguish and pain. It is our duty to ensure that no families ever again have to go through the prolonged fight for truth that the Hillsborough families have had to endure. The Government’s stated aim, to ensure that the truth cannot be concealed by the state and to extend legal aid for bereaved families at inquests where the state is an interested party, is therefore to be much welcomed.

As and when noble Lords scrutinise the Bill in your Lordships’ House, legitimate concerns that have been raised by campaigners and practitioners about the Bill’s scope and drafting must be considered. As was flagged by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, it is crucial that the duty of candour is framed so as to be effective in practice and not merely declaratory in form. The new criminal offences must be targeted so as to deter serious wrongdoing without producing unintended consequences that discourage necessary co-operation by public servants in good faith.

As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, we must also be clear about the Bill’s application across different parts of the state, including how it interacts with national security, defence and policing functions. Thoughtful, precise drafting and careful parliamentary scrutiny, which are hallmarks of your Lordships’ House, will be essential.

As was highlighted also by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Wills, on practical points, the commitment to broaden legal aid at inquests is welcome but it must be matched by clarity over funding and timeliness, and it must also provide the support that families require to participate fully in investigations and hearings. If the Bill is to fulfil its promise, the culture and the practical machinery of state accountability both need to change, not only the letter of the law.

Finally, as the Government and Parliament proceed, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition thank those across the other place, your Lordships’ House and, most notably, outside the Palace of Westminster who have worked tirelessly over decades to ensure that this grave issue remains on the radar and is ultimately fixed for good.

The former Attorney-General, the right honourable Dominic Grieve, persisted with constructive engagement over many years with questions of public accountability and the rule of law. His contributions, both in public office and subsequently, have helped advance turning the wider public concerns into enforceable statute.

There are many families whose perseverance has made this measure possible. Their cause deserves the highest level of care and best efforts in scrutinising and improving the Bill when it comes to your Lordships’ House. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition look forward to further discussion and collaborating cross-party with all noble Lords to ensure that the Bill is effective and fair and delivers the justice that families of relatives and friends caught up in the Hillsborough disaster both seek and deserve.

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, please let me thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions on this important subject matter. As we have heard, secure 16 to 19 academies are a promising and innovative conceptual approach to improving the youth justice system. His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons’ 2016 review of that system advocated for new institutions aimed at giving those who committed a custodial offence

“a bespoke and intensive programme of study and support in a therapeutic and well-ordered environment”.

When in government, we agreed with the Chief Inspector of Prisons and set upon that task to introduce secure schools. As a result of that work, the first secure school, the Oasis Restore, was opened with the intention of offering young people who have made poor choices in the past the opportunity to receive rehabilitation, support and education, in order that they may acquire the skills and qualifications needed to both better their lives and avoid the same mistakes in the future. These mainly young men and women deserve a second chance. As my noble friend Lord Farmer, who strives relentlessly for positive prison reform and improving outcomes for offenders, would confirm, with the right help and guidance, these youngsters can turn their lives around for the better.

I believe that all noble Lords, regardless of political persuasion, would agree that it is in Parliament’s power to facilitate institutions that will provide this, while at the same time being entirely realistic that it will be no easy task. The Bill is a further step towards that end, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition fully support it.

The concept of secure schools presupposes institutions which are flexible, short-term and have a high turnover. Young people are rehabilitated at a secure school and released back into society if and when that happens. There is no guarantee of the demand for such schools, nor the tenure of their occupants. Giving these places of improvement the same treatment as if they were regular schools, or prescribing them with the same regulations and requirements, is not practical. It is crystal clear that secure schools urgently require their own remit, given what we know about the extremely regrettable situation of events at Oasis Restore. Assaults and disorder were reportedly rife, in a chaotic and often out of control atmosphere. This is a country mile away from the intent behind a secure school. The fact that the pilot secure school is facing these early challenges is firm evidence that they must have a wider and more adaptable scope for action.

As was so eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, decreasing the notice period from seven years to two years allows for current and any future secure schools to be as flexible as the context requires. In a similar vein, disapplying the requirement to conduct an impact assessment on local maintained schools is prudent. Secure schools are a wholly different type of institution from the average school. They are jointly custodial and educational establishments. They are not competing for the same intake of students as local maintained schools. Therefore, comparing schools is both unnecessary and irrelevant. Requiring further considerations creates an additional layer of administrative bureaucracy that slows down the process. It is that very process which we are trying to achieve with secure schools—namely, the rehabilitation and further education of young people, which suffers as a result.

We understand that future secure schools will be dependent on funding, as well as the future success of Oasis Restore. We ask that the Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, might consider diverting some resource from their respective departments to focus on making Oasis Restore a shining template for what can be achieved with the right strategy and know-how.

As my noble friend Lord Farmer and many noble Lords across your Lordships’ House agree, including the noble Lord, Lord Bates, it is entirely possible to save young people from reoffending and living a life of crime, with all of the incremental negative consequences to society that go with it, if the right provision is given as early as possible. It is on us to play a pivotal role in helping secure schools to succeed, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe that the Bill achieves part of that.

Uncollected Financial Penalties

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

It is an interesting question—one which I used to grapple with regularly when I sat as a magistrate in Westminster. The noble Lord is asking that the sentencer increase the sentence from a fine to a community order, increasing the sentence for certain people who are unable to pay their fines. It may be that this is taken into account when sentencers make that judgement, but it is an inflationary—if I could use that word—solution to a problem. Nevertheless, of course, when sentencers impose fines, they have to take into account the means of those whom they sentence.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, there is £5 billion-worth of bitcoin cryptocurrency in government accounts seized from organised crime relating to Jian Wen. Please allow me to repeat that: £5 billion that is in the Government's bank account. I ask a similar question to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, posed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer four months ago: what are the Government’s plans for this windfall?

Prison Capacities

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, this will be quick. Four years from now, the prison population will be around 106,000. The Institute for Government has stated that, even with new prisons being built, there could be a shortfall of 8,000 prison places by 2028. Under the previous Government, we delivered the largest expansion to the prison estate since the Victorian era. Please will the Minister let us know exactly when and where the Government are going to build new prisons to accommodate these additional offenders?

It has been reported that probation officers are aware of criminals convicted of sexual and serious violent offences who are eligible for the early release scheme because they are serving consecutive sentences and Prison Service staff take into account only the sentence for a less serious, non-sexual offence. Please can the Minister reassure the House that this is not the case and confirm that any offender serving such consecutive sentences will not be eligible for early release?

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales has warned that a third of the victims where perpetrators were due for release on Tuesday were likely to be unaware of this. Many of these victims are not eligible for victim notification schemes, and those who are often fall off the Probation Service’s lists. Please can the Minister let us know how that can be allowed to happen and the exact number of victims who have not been informed?

A senior probation officer has also recounted that, by the time the Prison Service had determined who was eligible, many colleagues had been given only four weeks to prepare for offenders confirmed for release. In one instance, a colleague had been given just one week’s notice. The Government said that at least 1,000 new trainee probation officers would be recruited by the end of March 2025. Please can the Minister explain why it takes seven months to recruit trainees? That is surely too long. Does he not agree that four months should be the target to complete this?

Finally, for prisoner well-being, will the Minister commit to building an extra exercise facility in each of the UK’s 141 prisons to help the mental and physical rehabilitation and social interaction of prisoners?